Mike Butler to Paul Moon: 6 tricky Titford questions

The Maunganui Bluff farm that the Titfords were forced off.
How many other wrongs make that wrong right?

“Historian” Paul Moon has never been one to let a total absence of logic get in the way of a political diatribe.

On the Littlewood document, Moon famously proclaimed that “It can’t be a treaty because it wasn’t signed”.

(Which may sound plausible to a new chum. Until we point out that no proponent of the Littlewood document has ever said it was a treaty. It was the final English draft for translation into the Maori tiriti. So of course it would not be signed.)

In his latest dereliction of his duty of balanced reporting, Moon uses Allan Titford’s conviction on personal charges to declare all of his claims of state document tampering and tribal harassment a “fallacy” .

Bit of an own goal there, Paul. By using that term, you simply remind us of your fondness for red herring fallacies, including ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well.

For example:

For years, Allan Titford and his many supporters fashioned a dystopian and blatantly racist vision of New Zealand’s future, in which avaricious Maori tribes, together with obsequious politicians, would slowly but surely trample over private property rights.

Which, of course, is exactly what the state did in forcing Titford off his Maunganui Bluff farm, despite a string of politicians from Lange to Key promising the country that no farmer would ever lose his land to a tribal claim.

Again, our resident honest journalist Mike Butler poses some tricky questions to yet another lopsided commentator.

_________________________________

Questions for Dr Paul Moon

 Historian Paul Moon asks, in alleging jailed farmer Allan Titford’s mania fed a racial rift, where was the public defence of Te Roroa people who were vilified by Titford?

Here are some questions for Moon:

1. Did Titford not buy a freehold title farm in November 1986 and was lawfully farming and subdividing his land when dogged by a claimant protest from August 7, 1987?
2. Did the Te Roroa Report 1992 relitigate a claim that had been rejected in 1942?
3. Is it not true that in the Te Roroa Report, the only proof that the land called Manuwhetai on the Titford farm, and Whangaiariki on Don Harrison’s farm, was omitted from the 1876 sale, was an assertion by the Waitangi Tribunal that it was left out?
4. Is it not true that Plan 3253 attached to the 1876 Maunganui block sale shows a single reserve, and that was 250 acres at Lake Taharoa, and the land described as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not marked or mentioned?
5. And why is the Titford-Te Roroa scrap deemed racial when Susan Cochrane (Kakarana) has fine Ngapuhi ancestry?

Titford’s partner: trial a ‘joke’

My thanks to elocal editor Mykeljon Winckel, who has allowed me to release this story to you a day before it appears in his publication.

The fearless yet likeable ‘MJ’ — son of a Dutch war hero — is one of New Zealand’s few honest media owners. We’re lucky to have him.

Marcian Thomas was also interviewed for TVNZ’s Sunday programme, which screens tomorrow at 7.30pm.

Also appearing will be Susan Cochrane/Kakarana/Titford, so it will be interesting to see if TVNZ’s balance is any better than that of the Sunday Star-Times.

Mike Butler to Star-Times: 6 questions for Te Roroa

The Sunday Star-Times’s predictably unbalanced vilification of Titford:
no mention of his evidence against the state and Te Roroa

Former Hawkes Bay Herald-Tribune sub-editor Mike Butler, a meticulous seeker of facts, has sent the following email to Sunday Star-Times reporter Simon Day, author of the central panel of the above story from last Sunday.

The story (see link below) is predictably one-sided, and attempts to lull gullible readers into believing that because Titford has been put away for crimes against people and property, his evidence against the state and Te Roroa can be safely ignored.

Note Mike Butler’s account of recent harassment and death threats against those who speak out against the tribe.

_________________________________

Hi Simon,

I met you in Waitangi on February 5 this year. I was with John Ansell and sat in on the interview when we were kicked out of the Te Tii marae.

I researched the Allan Titford saga for the report at

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/mike-butler-treaty-try-on-forces-farmer.html

I have some comments on your “Bittersweet vindication for iwi” story at

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9435787/Bittersweet-vindication-for-iwi

You wrote: “Last week the truth about Titford was exposed in the Whangarei District Court when he was sentenced to 24 years in prison for 39 charges including assault, sexual violation, arson and fraud.”

He certainly was sentenced to that time on those charges, but how accurate are the charges and what is the supporting evidence?

Attached is the list of charges that Titford faced. It is under a letter from Simon Power to Susan “Kakarana” (yes, you guessed it, Cochrane) on the subject of perjury and how to avoid being charged for committing it.

Look at the rape charges.

The charges allege three of sexual violation by rape — one on a day uncertain in the months of September and December 1987 at Dargaville, another on a day uncertain in 2008 at Kaitaia, and another on or about July 7, 2009, at Kaitaia.

With such vagueness on the dates, was Titford convicted of three charges of rape, or one, and if so, what evidence supported these allegations?

You will see that that one charge alleges that the Titfords in January 19, 1989, attempted a wool bales insurance claim.

A report by Detective Constable G.C. Smith, dated November 11, 1988, records a complaint by Titford of an attempted arson of his house on October 19, 1988, and notes that Titford had no insurance cover.

I would be very interested to see if Titford was convicted of attempted insurance fraud at a time when he had no insurance.

You wrote that it was found he had burnt down his own home in 1992, but had blamed it on local Maori to increase his claim to compensation from the government”.

You go on to say that “Te Roroa Maori hope this is a chance for their story to be told and the claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage exposed as lies”.

Are claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage actually lies?

You should ask Moengaroa Murray whether:

1. On August 7, 1987, squatters moved on to the beach part of the section in force and erected signs to frighten away any prospective buyers.
2. On August 16, 1987,  Hughie Te Rore and Huia White told Titford that if he gave them the land they would drop their tribunal claim.
3. On December 5, 1987, at 1.15pm, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White arrived at the house and said that if Titford removed the buildings used by squatters they would take revenge within 24 hours and it would be nationwide news. (A vacant house on Titford’s property was burned down in the early hours of the next morning. Sue Cochrane said Titford did it.)
4. On January 12, 1988, a group of claimants in a green Toyota Corona shot stock in Titford’s paddock. On that date, claimants also arranged for the Historic Places Trust to come in and make the site a sacred area.
5. On January 20, 1988, claimants erected a large carved pole on Titford’s land. Local councillors, local non-Maori, Maori Marsden, and TVNZ reporters attended and dined on sheep slaughtered from Titford’s flock without Titford knowing.
6. On March 22, 1988, claimant Hugh Te Rore had Conservation Department archaeologist Leigh Johnson (Mr) visit Titford’s farm. Johnson told Titford he had permission to be there from landowner Hugh Te Rore. Johnson also told Titford that the area was from then on wahi tapu and a reserve.

I would like to know whether Moengaroa Murray thinks these are all lies.

Just ask her the questions and see what she says and compare her reaction with those of other people you have interviewed.

If these are not lies, then the statement “claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage exposed as lies” is an untrue statement.

Thank you for talking to Don Harrison.

His story shows that Titford was not alone in facing harassment and pressure to sell. Other farmers north of Titford and Harrison were also forced to sell.

The Titford saga did not start out as an anti-treaty white sticking it to obstreperous Maoris.

It started out with Titford’s plan to become debt-free by developing a subdivision on his own land that was derailed by claimants who believed they had rights to that land.

Titford had a two-year mortgage at commercial rates in the late 1980s dependent upon subdividing and selling coastal sections within two years.

Claimant protest and interference prevented him from completing that project.

Titford could not afford to sell at the level Harrison sold for because he would be left with a substantial debt with no means of repaying it.

He tried solving the problem by negotiating with the government and by doing a deal with the bank to get another farm elsewhere, but he was strung along by the government and ripped off by the bank.

The final sale and purchase agreement had a clause in which he agreed not to sue the National Bank.

By 1995, when Titford finally had to sell or be sold up by the bank, he had accrued a debt to the bank of $2.2m.

Today I fielded two abusive phone calls.

Another colleague was similarly abused, and yet another had a death threat.

If this is bittersweet vindication for iwi, they have an unusual way of expressing it.

Mike Butler

Why I’m not deserting Allan Titford

Front page, Sunday Star-Times, 24 November 2013

Allan Titford’s partner of three years, Marcian Thomas, is just the latest of six friends of Titford to tell me that they suspect his wife and children have been bribed to lie about him.

In 2007, Titford’s father signed an affidavit saying that state fix-it man Ray Chappell offered him and his wife a $500,000 bribe to declare Allan insane, so the Crown could get control of his farm.

The state tried to bribe Titford’s parents.
Did they also bribe his wife and kids?

I have written evidence of his wife Sue lying, and of two of his children lying and stealing since coming under her sole care.

And so when the Sunday Star-Times rang me last Friday for my thoughts on Allan Titford’s 24 year incarceration, I was not about to reflexively disown him — as the 1law4all party shamefully did.

I told Adam Dudding three things about the sentence struck me as so fishy they smacked of a vendetta by the state.

Firstly, there was Judge Duncan Harvey’s triumphant proclamation, “It is time for the people of New Zealand to learn the truth”.

And what is “the truth” that the judge wants “the people of New Zealand” to “learn”?

He can only be referring to the matter for which Titford has long been a thorn in the side of the government.

He can only be implying that Titford’s guilt on a slew of personal charges somehow invalidates his slew of evidence that the Crown and Te Roroa heavied him off his Maunganui Bluff farm to satisfy a provably bogus tribal land claim.

As you will see in coming posts, despite the Star-Times attempts to put you off the scent, that evidence remains as damning as ever.

Second matter of concern was the extraordinary 24 year sentence that Judge Harvey handed down — almost as long as those imposed on double murderers Peter Howse (25 years) and Graeme Burton (26 years).

What motivated this Northland judge to give Titford one of the longest, if not the longest sentence in New Zealand history for offences in which no one died, largely on the evidence of a disgruntled ex-wife?

And thirdly, there was the cumulative nature of the sentence — when almost all multiple sentences are served concurrently. Allan’s partner Marcian tells me the judge actually started his calculations at 34 years!

(Both Garth McVicar and Mike Butler were so staggered when they read ’24 years’ they thought it was a misprint.)

The maximum penalty for rape is 20 years. More to the point, how do you get a conviction for a marital rape at all, never mind one that supposedly occurred “on a date uncertain” in 1987?

(Of the 58 charges against Titford, only one could be pinpointed to a specific date, 13 offences were said to have happened ‘on or about’ a particular date, and the remaining 44 “on a date uncertain” in a particular month, half-year, year or decade between June 1987 and July 2009.)

44 of 58 alleged offences could not be pinpointed to within a month

So when reporter Adam Dudding rang, my mind immediately turned to the two long meetings I’d had with a surprisingly mild-mannered Allan Titford, his loving and totally supportive partner of three years Marcian, and their happy little son Leo, who clearly loved his dad.

It turned again to the tonnage of evidence I’d seen of state evidence-tampering and other harassment — enough to fill the 598 page book Robbery by Deceit by Titford and Ross Baker.

I thought of all the fine and honest people like Ross, Martin Doutre and Mykeljon Winckel who’ve been demonised along with Allan for shining the light on the state’s and tribe’s dirty tricks.

I thought of the chilling comment allegedly made by Ray Chappell to Allan that “we own the media and can manipulate public perceptions of you” and that “It doesn’t matter how good your case is or how much evidence you find,
because we own the judges”.

I could hear my friends’ warnings that by giving Allan the benefit of the doubt I’d be putting my head in the media noose and adding my name to the list of media-annointed ‘conspiracy theorists’. (As if all conspiracies must, by definition, be false.)

Then I decided I was not going to let a man rot in prison, a woman live without her man, and a boy grow up without his father, while there remained the real possibility that he was being punished for proving the state corrupt.

The above front page story was the result.

Predictably, it leaves out my comment to the reporter that “if Allan actually did these things then he deserves everything that’s coming to him.” That, of course, would make me look too fair-minded.

Allan’s partner Marcian describes my assessment of Allan as a big pussycat as absolutely accurate. She says they have their barneys like any couple, but she’s never had any cause to fear that Allan might lift a finger against her, nor has he.

(A remarkable turnaround from the supposedly violent monster who so terrorised his previous family.)

Allan Titford: 24 years for proving the state corrupt?
Why did his legal aid lawyer not call a single witness?

So why was Allan Titford found guilty?

Marcian tells me that Allan’s legal aid lawyer was woefully underprepared, and did not call a single witness, despite having six pages of names.

The aforementioned vindictive judge even thanked him for going so lightly on Sue and the children.

According to Marcian, when the verdicts were read out, four of the five women on the jury were in tears, and one man was later overheard as saying he never wanted to serve on a jury again.

There is much more to be told in the Allan Titford story.

Stay tuned.

On TV One Breakfast 7.20am tomorrow

TVNZ rang today seeking my views on the renaming of the North and South Islands.

The so-called ‘public consultation’ phase of the NZ Geographic Board’s no-doubt already-decided Maorification process has apparently closed.

Now it just remains for the government fence-sitter in charge of place names, Maurice Williamson, to fly in the face of 80% of the public and announce that our islands will henceforth be known as Tei Ika a Maui North Island and Te Wai Pounamu South Island.

By the time I’d responded to the reporter’s request to appear on the Breakfast programme, they’d already found someone else.

But after I unloaded my none-too-subtle thoughts on this latest attempt to sidestep the will of the people, her producer decided to put me on after all!

I have a little surprise in store.

Catch me if you can. 7.20am Wednesday.

Over to U, 1LAW4ALL

The 1LAW4ALL Party is now a reality. Although I am not keen on the numberplate styling, I must say I do like the logo and the clever way the 1 doubles as the hole in the ONE.

There are some good people involved in the party — John Harrison and Tom Johnson in Hawkes Bay, Larry Wood and Candy Ostman in Nelson and Peter Cresswell in Auckland being the only ones to have so far identified themselves.

I hope the others will soon demonstrate the courage of their convictions.

I wish them well in attracting a suitable leader, deputy and candidates. The “build it and they will come” approach is bold and risky, and therefore deserves to succeed.

Their success at the ballot box will depend entirely on their finding a front person who can fire up the masses. Without that person, they’re a ghost party.

An inspirational, forward-focused Maori would, of course, be perfect.

The leader must crystallise the views of 80% of New Zealanders plainly and fearlessly, in the most challenging of forums. He or she must front foot every issue, never take a backward step, electrify the public, and terrify the Nats.

It must be a retail campaign that grabs the millions, not a wholesale campaign that impresses the thousands.

The party should bring good Kiwis together, and persuade good Maori to stand up to the Grievers.

For some time, as you know, I’ve been proposing a single-issue party called Together New Zealand. I thought the inclusive model was the way to go.

But in the end the organisational expertise and funds have gone with the 1LAW4ALL concept.

While I’m disappointed not to be in the loop, I did the best I could with what I had. I hope these 158 posts and dozens of media and live appearances have made a bit of a difference.

Over the last eighteen months, I’ve surprised myself by how little I mind fighting our opponents.

Fronting up to Hone Harawira on Close Up, Chris Finlayson at Orewa, Metiria Turei and Joris de Bres on Maori TV, Willie and JT on Radio Live and in Truth, the security guards at Te Papa and John Key and the iwi thug at Waitangi have been easier than I expected.

(Mainly because they have no answers to plainly-stated truths.)

But squabbling with friends I find deeply depressing. (And I have more than enough in common with John Kirwan and Stephen Fry in that regard already.)

So it’s time for me to step away from this issue, at least for a while, and see if I can make a difference in another important area — that of language.

To the many readers who’ve helped me in so many ways, a sincere thank you.

If you continue to see posts on this site that you find useful, feel free to keep supporting it. I have dozens of unfinished posts, which I hope to finish as the inspiration returns. At the moment there’s not much gas in the tank, but that may well change.

Otherwise, I suggest you get behind the 1LAW4ALL guys and help them deliver on their potential.

Some time ago, I said I’d be speaking tonight in Hastings, and next Tuesday at Otago University. Those appearances have been cancelled.

Single-issue party imminent

Apologies for my silence in recent days. I’ve been preoccupied with making arrangements for a sick mother, attending her sister’s funeral and other housekeeping matters.

Despite Tim Wikiriwhi’s best efforts, the turnout to the Hamilton meeting was disappointing — 50 by my count.

Perhaps my ad, which Tim placed prominently, would have produced a better result if I’d stuck with the usual headline ‘Racial Equality Meeting’ rather than ‘Stop the Surrender of New Zealand to Tribal Tricksters’. I just wanted to see how many Hamiltonians felt passionately enough about stopping the surrender to come along in person.

The answer was not many.

I also wanted to use the occasion to plead with the organisers of the 1LAW4ALL party not to render their name in textspeak. To me, it’s madness to use the language of the Treaty-brainwashed under 30s when the party’s core target market is the literate over 60s.

This is another attempt to persuade them to reconsider.

I was not one of the 16 invitees to the setup meeting for this party (my reputation for forthrightness — or as I would put it, quality before compromise — having preceded me!).

But they did ask me to do their advertising.

On the evidence of that first important creative decision, I declined.

If you’ve followed my career, you’ll note that I don’t hang around long when I don’t trust the client’s judgment. (On the other hand, when the client trusts me to do my job, the result is usually pretty good.)

I hope they change their mind and show more respect for the English language. After all, isn’t that one of the glories of the West we’re supposed to be defending?

It’s fair to say I’m questioning my own value to this cause given these developments. I am an instinctive and rather too emotional creature. I’m hoping my instincts about the rendering of this party’s name are wrong, and that they enjoy every success.

In any case, I plan to keep posting my thoughts here and hope you’ll keep contributing yours.

Must state servants parrot Treaty lies?

This plea from a reader who can’t afford to be identified:

Hi John,

I work in a very PC not-quite-government-department. I’ve been working here for nearly 6 years, and my annual appraisal is about to come up.

One of the things that has come up each year is my reading and understanding of the Treaty as it relates to work.

So far, I’ve managed to evade this subject by just saying “I respect all cultures, and I believe we should all be treated equally”.

(Which is true, by the way.)

Last year, I was told in no uncertain terms that that was not going to be sufficient this year, and I’d have to actually read some of our policies regarding the “Treaty”.

Well, I don’t want to.

I don’t believe in the version of the Treaty that is being shoved down our throats. And quite frankly, I’m also sick and tired of being made out to be the “bad guy” because I’m white.

I’m pretty sure that my contract would have mentioned something about the Treaty. But can I get out of it? Can I say it goes against my “religious” or “cultural” beliefs”?

(Pretty sure that would only work if I was brown.)

I did read very briefly a recent statement which said “we realise Maori don’t have the same access to healthcare as others”. A quick poll at my clinic resulted in blank stares, and “What the hells?”

If you or anyone knows how I might be able to challenge this requirement, I’d love to hear from them.

Keep up the good work.

Regards,
(NAME WITHHELD FOR FEAR OF LOSING JOB)

It’s disgraceful if people who work for the government must parrot the government’s lies in order to keep their jobs.

Would anyone else like to share their experiences of Treaty harassment?

And can our reader legally object to kowtowing to the Treatifarian agenda on religious, cultural or perhaps ethical grounds — on the basis that “I was brought up to tell the truth”?

In the Wikiriwhi man cave

Had dinner at the Wikiriwhis in Hamilton last night. Tim is an engineer, a libertarian, a Christian and a boxer, and Joy, among other things, is an excellent cook. So one way and another, I’m getting well looked after.

Both Tim and I were interviewed by the Waikato Times late yesterday, and a story, accompanied by a photo something like the above (this one shot by Joy in Tim’s man cave) is likely to run tomorrow.

I heard yesterday that a Dunedin meeting has now been confirmed for the evening of 11 June in a lecture theatre of Otago University. Thanks to Colin and Hilary for arranging that.

Before that, we’ve got a Hastings meeting on 7 June. More on these later.

Now to focus on tonight’s meeting at 7.00 pm in the Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street, Hamilton.

NOTE: Apparently we’re not allowed into the venue before 6.30pm.

 

Always good to see the ad in print

I’m about to drive to Hamilton for tomorrow night’s meeting.

Today an ad should have appeared on page 2 of the Waikato Times. This one was in the Hamilton News. Good to know that at least one person saw it.

Thanks to Tim Wikiriwhi for organising everything. See you tonight for dinner, Tim.

Looking forward to catching up with you other Waikato readers tomorrow at 7pm at the Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street.

Freedom with Vinny

My two hours with the sympathetic Vinny Eastwood on American Freedom Radio allowed me more freedom to spell out my views than I’ve ever had before.

There were technical issues with the link from Texas, but I think it played OK. Over the phone I couldn’t hear too well, so missed some cues to ‘wrap it up’ before going into breaks.

You’ll find me here, just after Vinny’s interview with John Minto!

That number again: 80% of Hauraki District Council voters reject Maori wards

Hauraki District Council voters are just the latest to reject former Rac(ist) Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres’s arrogant edict that local councils create race-based seats for part members of one race only.

Results for the Hauraki District Council Maori Representation Poll that closed on Wednesday May 1, 2013, clearly indicated the majority of those who voted do not support separate Maori seats.

Of the 5284 (39.12%) electors who voted, 4249 were against the idea, while 1015 were for it.

That’s an 80.4% ‘No’ vote — utterly consistent with other polls on Maori seats, and other issues of Maori privilege from whether to fund Maori-only housing to whether to revert to Maori names.

“It’s a good turnout as far as the election is concerned,” said Deputy Mayor Bruce Gordon, “The number of people who responded has given us a clear mandate with regard to the issue of Maori Wards, but obviously Maori can still stand as individuals for the upcoming Local Government election like anyone else.”

Quite so.

Of course, there’s a big difference between the referenda held by the councils of Hauraki District, Waikato District and Nelson City and those held by the government…

Local referenda are binding.

Because of that — and only because of that — racially biased councillors are being consistently overruled for arrogantly deviating from the wishes of the people they’re paid to represent.

It’s time national referenda gave all voters the same power.

Hamilton ad for next Thursday

My Maori colleague Tim Wikiriwhi is doing a great job beating the drum for next Thursday’s Hamilton meeting.

I’ve designed the above ad, which he has placed in today’s Hamilton News and on page 2 of next Wednesday’s Waikato Times.

Thanks to those who have responded to Tim’s appeal to help him pay for it. We’re still short of the required amount, so if you can pop something in the pot,  please email twikiriwhi@yahoo.co.nz and he’ll give you his bank account number.

I know some people are coming down from Auckland and others from Tauranga and Te Kuiti, so I’ll be focusing between now and then on making the trip worth your while!

 

Kupe’s descendant confirms other races were here first

 

Elocal editor Mykeljon Winkel has come up trumps again with a story about Ngapuhi’s achiever chief David Rankin.

ELOCAL

“You recently voiced support for historians who claim that New Zealand was settled much earlier than commonly accepted. Are you merely supporting free speech and political incorrectness, or do you genuinely believe that there were other civilizations here in NZ before the arrival of Kupe circa 1250AD?”

DAVID RANKIN

“Let me just start off and say this, Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived. I am his direct descendant and I know from our oral history passed down 44 generations.

I believe this needs to be investigated further because every Maori community talks about Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe. This goes hand-in-hand with the other research.

As Maori, we have come to a time of maturity where we need to debate these issues. I want to get to a genuine consensus about this issue, although I think academics want it to disappear. If we start talking about it and investigating it, it’s an exciting opportunity to explore.

My ancestors like Kupe came to the Hokianga in search of other people. In the Waima ranges, there was a pipi shelter on the mountains, and the kuia used to talk about the fair skinned people up there.

A lot of people identify as Paniora (translated as Spaniard), indicating that the Portuguese and Spanish washed up on ancient ships in Northland.

In 2002, I went to the Austronesian Leaders Conference in Taiwan and we discussed similarities with Taiwanese Aborigines. We traced our origins and the Maori and Polynesian connection to China.

All the leaders such as myself and Matiu Rei, Aborigines, Solomon islanders, Rapa Nui and Hawaiians were all interested in early settlement theories. There is a lot of writing about the whole ancestral link.

Really, Maori didn’t navigate here, we came on a tidal drift. Te Tai Tokerau is actually the tidal drift from the Tokelau islands. When my ancestors arrived at the shores of Aotearoa, there were people here to greet them. The question is: who are those people?

It goes hand-in- hand with our oral history. There are questions written by Ian Wishart, Noel Hilliam and others that need to be answered.”

Elocal has championed the quest for more openness on pre-Maori settlement in New Zealand. The case is well-summarised in a recent story by Raynor Capper on the Waipoua Forest stone city subtitled Undeniable Proof of NZ Civilisation Before Kupe.

Most interesting to me is National Archives’ 75-year embargo of evidence found in a three-year state investigation of 500 acres of the 25,000 acre historical treasure trove in the 1980s.

Is the idea of a pre-Maori stone city in the Waipoua Forest the ludicrous fantasy of nutters, as  our haughty Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson claims?

If so, why must we wait until 2063 to see what state investigators found there in the 1980s? 

ELOCAL

“What do you think the ramifications would be if Maori appeared not to be the indigenous people of New Zealand?”

DAVID RANKIN

“That would put all our treaty claims in question and our indigenous rights at the UN. It would open up a whole can of worms. I do believe if we start approaching it the right way other Maori would be keen to discuss it.

I think there has been a rot been allowed to set in to Maoridom since the Lange government took power in the early 1980s.

In many ways, all the changes that have taken place have taken the basic responsibility away, their mana, from being true Maori, like working for a living, educating themselves and their families, leading strong lives and observing the laws of the land.

If you are able to work then work! Help your fellow Maori and Pakehas be successful in life. Being Maori — and, let’s face it, you only need to be 32% by government standards — does not mean you need to take the easy way out and have your hand out.

I have never taken anything from the government, I am self made, strong and I say stop the funding. Maori need to return to the warriors they once were.

It may be hard at first but intergenerational beneficiaries are embarrassing to my culture.”

2 hours on The Vinny Eastwood Show from 10am Saturday

Listen to Treatygate LIVE on Saturday from 10am (not 12pm as it says above) at
American Freedom Radio.

Tomorrow, Saturday 11 May from 10am — 12pm (NOT 12pm-2pm as it says above), I’ll be broadcasting to the world via Skype on American Freedom Radio’s The Vinny Eastwood Show.

(No, I won’t be making light of genocide — especially the Taranaki genocide of the Moriori.)

Vinny is a marvel of the internet age, a 29 year old Westie revolutionary broadcasting out of a home studio in Glen Eden to up to 100,000 pairs of ears worldwide.

As his alter ego MR NEWS says, he covers “everything the mainstream media leaves out, so as you can imagine I’m quite busy!”

One of those things is Treatygate, so I’m grateful that guys like Vinny are there to pick up the slack.

The interview will go out live as a radio broadcast at 10am. Then Vinny will upload the Skype video to his You Tube channel. Also, nine New Zealand radio stations from Invercargill to Wanganui will run the programme as a delayed broadcast.

Vinny’s two-hour show five days a week is one of the mainstays of AFR. 

No pressure!

Vinny has more brands than an old Texan cattle ranch. Guerilla Media is another.

MR NEWS, Vinny’s You Tube channel, gets more views than NZ Herald TV.

Vinny at a pub in Glen Eden, where I bought him a beer or two
for loaning me his recording gear that Mike Butler and I used
(and mercifully managed not to get smashed) at Waitangi.

Catch Vinny and me on American Freedom Radio on Saturday from 10am till noon.

Or join The Vinny Eastwood Show chat room.

And/or call up the show on 001-218-339-8525.

What’s going to be weird is that, unlike in my recent two hour stint with Jackson and Tamihere on Radio Live — in fact, unlike nearly all of my other media appearances so far — I won’t be outnumbered by two or three opponents barking over the top of me.

This assumes that Vinny will be his normal amiable self. (Which he will be, because any enemy of the government is a friend of Vinny’s. :-))

Hope you can join us. 10am tomorrow.

Akonga post updated

Sorry folks, I see that somehow my post about the NZ Teachers Council renaming ‘learners’ ‘akonga’ got posted deep in the blog where only subscribers would have seen it.

I’ve now moved it to just below the post about Oamaru North School. I think the ‘akonga’ renaming crosses a line. Have a read and see if you agree.

Oamaru North School dumps stone buildings for rock drawings

More Maorification in education, this time the social studies curriculum of Oamaru North School.

Seems the staff went on a Treaty of Waitangi indoctrination course. (Masquerading, of course, as “professional development”.)

And they came back so brainwashed they saw fit to set aside the culture of 70% of the school’s pupils to “meet the needs” of the 15% who are part-Maori.

The subject in question was “the primary context within which the students could examine their relationship with the place where they lived”.

Now I don’t speak Bureaucrobabble, but I suspect this translates into the English expression “the main landmarks of Oamaru”.

For the last 150 years, the town’s beautiful white stone buildings have served in this role. But not any more, according to the indoctrinated indoctrinators of Oamaru North.

Now, Victorian architecture is out, and tribal archaeology is in.

In order to indulge the favoured few, all of Oamaru North’s children are now required to relate, not to the symbols of civilisation that they see all around them, but to primitive Maori cave drawings half an hour out of town. (At Duntroon, 42km north-west of Oamaru.)

Sadly, there’s plenty of similar mumbo-jumbo where this came from — the Ministry of Education’s update on the Treaty of Waitangi’s Education Ministry – NZ Curriculum update 16 – Treaty principle

Read it and weep — for your children.

NZ Teachers Council insist learners are now ‘akonga’

In their relentless mission to degrade Western civilisation and prioritise the primitive, the NZ Teachers Council now insist that any teacher wanting to be registered must stop calling children ‘learners’ and refer to them at all times as ‘akonga’.

(Naturally, they remember to put a macron over the first ‘a’ in akonga, but forget to put a possessive apostrophe after the ‘s’ of Teachers. No doubt they regard punctuation as an evil colonial affectation.)

Like the Constitutional Advisory Panel, the teachers have also taken it upon themselves to change the name of our country while they’re about it.

Just in case you think their akonga edict is voluntary, read this…

And this…

That’s right: there is no longer any place for any English language quotations in the English language version of the Teachers Council Registered Teacher Criteria handbook.

The glories of the language of Shakespeare are as nothing compared to the pronouncements of the wise kaumatua.

Part of the brainwashing process requires our new teachers to ask themselves the following (this is a montage of questions dotted throughout the Holy Criteria)…

This from the home page of the website.

Naturally the teacher is brown and her ‘akonga’ are white.

My next illustration is my attempt to put it all in disgraceful perspective.

Didn’t Gramsci and co. do well?

What we’re seeing is the socialists joining forces with New Zealand’s communist primitivists as part of the plan to topple the West.

(I must say I’m surprised the Christians are leading the charge to capitulate with their Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. They should be proud of saving Maori from the depravities of cannibalism and intertribal genocide, but why they want to surrender their culture to the descendants of those tribesmen is a mystery.)

Clearly our schools are now Orwellian state indoctrination units where…

SS-T poll: 70% No to Maori seats, 56% No to Treaty Principles

More poll results for our expanding collection.

According to last week’s Sunday Star-Times survey on Constitutional matters, 70% of 3800 readers want to ditch the Maori seats, while 25.6% want to keep them…

And 56.3% don’t want the Treaty principles in any written constitution, while 34.4% do…

In another question, 87.8% of readers want to see any written constitution ratified by referendum.

Invading the Waikato, May 16th

Tim Wikiriwhi, taking on the Grievers in The Great Waitangi Debate.

My next meeting will be very different.

It will be in Hamilton at 7.00pm on Thursday May 16th at the Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street.

I’m proud to say that, for the first time, I have a Maori colleague publicly supporting me. So much so that he’s enthusiastically volunteered to organise the meeting.

Tim Wikiriwhi is a brave, passionate and articulate New Zealander. He’s a Christian Libertarian, which I’m not, and we don’t agree on everything. But we sure as hell agree on this.

He’s one of the few Maori to demonstrate the courage to stand up to the  thuggish part-descendants of the 1860s rebels who falsely claim to represent their race.

When TVNZ’s Marae programme needed a Maori to oppose the Griever view, it was Tim they turned to. And he did brilliantly.

It’s my goal with Together New Zealand to encourage those Maori with achiever values to seize back the mantle of Maoridom that has been stolen and tarnished by the backward-looking grievers. Tim could be just the man to do it.

He’s going to speak before me, and he’ll be a hard act to follow.

Inspired by Tim, my own performance won’t be the usual evidence-packed slideshow I’ve been casually narrating thus far.

This one will be a speech!

The Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street — scene
of many a political speech in Hamilton, including mine.

See you on the 16th.